Joint and Several Liability

• Definition: Refers to the situation where two or more defendants are each individually responsible for the entire damage caused, as well as collectively liable.

Key Points:

• Multiple parties can be held liable for the same harm.

• The claimant can choose to claim the full amount of damages from any one defendant or from multiple defendants.

• If one defendant pays more than their share, they may seek contribution from other defendants.

• Example: If two people negligently cause a car accident, the injured person can sue either one of them for the full amount of the damages.

Elements of Joint and Several Liability:

1. Multiple Defendants: There must be at least two tortfeasors (wrongdoers).

2. Same Injury: The defendants must have caused the same damage to the claimant.

3. Independent or Collective Causation: Each defendant’s actions must contribute to the harm, either independently or jointly.

Key Cases:

• Toto v. Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall Police (2002):

  • Outcome: A police officer and a third party could both be held jointly and severally liable for the harm caused.

• Moseley v. Kable (2011):

  • Outcome: Both parties were jointly involved in a car crash and ruled jointly and severally liable for the damage caused.

  • Highlights the flexibility of the claimant to claim all damages from any defendant.

Contribution Between Defendants:

• If one defendant pays more than their "share," they can seek contribution from other defendants.

• Governed by the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

• For example, Reverend D & Company Ltd v. Morrison (1981): When one party has paid the full claim, they can recover their share from other defendants.

Limitations:

• Complex disputes can arise when multiple defendants are involved.

• Financial Insolvency of a defendant can limit the claimant's recovery.

• Insurance Issues may also affect the recovery process.

Vicarious Liability

• Generally, liability lies with the person who committed the tort, but may also fall on someone who authorized or overlooked the action.

Key Points:

• A common example is employer liability for an employee's actions.

• This is a strong example of strict liability, putting liability on employers even if they are blameless.

Reasons for Holding Employers Liable:

• Employers have financial resources to compensate victims.

• They are generally insured against liabilities that may arise through employees' actions.

• Encourages employers to minimize risks associated with their employees' conduct.

Key Developments in Vicarious Liability:

• Law has expanded to include relationships ‘akin to employment’ as highlighted in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society (2012).

Requirements for Employer Liability:

1. An employer/employee relationship or a relationship similar to employment.

2. The employee must be acting in the course of employment.

Key Cases on Employee Status:

• Control Test: Developed in Ferguson v John Dawson and Partners (1976) but found inadequate for all employees.

• Business Integration Test: From Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans (1952).

• Economic Reality Test: Established in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and NI (1968), examining the worker's agreement to wages and control consistency with employment contracts.

• Business on their own account Test: Introduced in Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security (1969) to determine if the worker operates independently.

Recent Developments in Vicarious Liability:

• Cox v Ministry of Justice (2014): Held MoJ vicariously liable for an inmate's negligent actions.

• Cases like WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants (2020) and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (2020) further clarify these principles.

Tests for 'In the Course of Employment':

• The Salmond Test: Assessing if the harmful act is in the employment scope.

  • Illustrative Cases: Poland v Parr (1927) (implied authority) vs Warren v Henleys Ltd (1948) (personal revenge).

• Close Connection Test: Expanded through Lister v Hesley Hall (2001) allowing for liabilities even in cases of wrongdoing if closely connected to employment.